Memorandum TO: All Membe FROM: Larry Cook DATE: February 2, SUBJECT: Next Meeti

Please be advised that the business oat 2:00 p.m. in the CMCOG Conferen The CMCOG would like to thank youan integral part of our transportationtransportation projects which affect o If you have any questions or need Simmons of the CMCOG Staffrsimmons@centralmidlands.org. I lomark your calendars! Enclosures

G:\COATS MPO-Reginald\High Speed-Light Rail Comm

Serving Lo236 Stoneridge Drive, Columbia, SC 2921

rs of the CMCOG Rail Transit Committee

e, Chairman

2006

ng B February 9, 2006

f the CMCOG Rail Transit Committee will be conducted on February 9th, ce Room. Enclosed, please find support materials for your review.

for your service and participation. The Rail Transit Committee serves as planning process and is often a key step for review and approval of rail ur region. Your service is admirable and appreciated.

any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Reginald . Reginald can be reached at 803-744-5133 or by email at ok forward to meeting with you on February 9th; please don’t forget to

ittee\Agendas\Agendas 2006\Rail Transit Committee 2-9-06-Notice Only.doc

cal Governments in South Carolina's Midlands 0 — (803) 376-5390 — FAX (803) 376-5394 — Web Site: http://www.centralmidlands.org

G:\COATS MPO-Reginald\High Speed-Light Rail Committee\Agendas\Agendas 2006\Rail Transit 2-9-06-Agenda.doc

AGENDA

RAIL TRANSIT COMMITTEE

MEETING: THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2006

2:00 PM TO 4:00 PM

CMCOG CONFERENCE ROOM

1. Welcome, Introductions, and Call to Order .................................................... Larry Cooke 2. Approval of January 12, 2006 Minutes............................................................Entire Group

(Enclosure 1) 3. Corridor Evaluation Criteria .......................................................................... Brian Piascik

Discuss proposed criteria to be used in analyses of the three corridors. The variables and data to be used for ridership modeling will also be addressed.

4. High Speed Rail Connections ....................................................................... Brian Piascik Discuss characteristics of potential links to the Southeast High Speed Rail corridor.

5. Draft Operating Plans .................................................................................... Brian Piascik Discuss operating plans for the three corridors using commuter rail and bus rapid transit alternatives.

6. Travel Patterns ...............................................................................................Brett Wallace Presentation of travel patterns: existing and future.

7. Public Participation Updates .........................................................................Brett Wallace Update committee members on the status of the public participation process.

8. Review Schedule and Upcoming Tasks.......................................................... Brian Piascik Provide comments on upcoming tasks and the schedule for future meetings.

9. Chairman Remarks ......................................................................................... Larry Cooke

10. Old/New Business............................................................................................ Larry Cooke

11. Public Comments......................................................................................................... Open

12. Adjourn ............................................................................................................ Larry Cooke

MINUTES

The Rail Transit Committee Meeting met at Central Midlands Council of Governments on Thursday, January 12, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Ward Braswell, City of Newberry Michael Criss, Richland County Larry Cooke, Richland County Jim Frierson, SCDOT Marshall Hoefer- Richland County Mitzi Javers, CMRTA Michael Juras, DHEC Lil Mood, Chapin Stan Shealy, Mayor, Chapin Dana Turner, City of Columbia CMCOG PERSONNEL Norman Whitaker, Executive Director Reginald Simmons, Staff Roland Bart, Staff Ben Mauldin, Staff Shelia Bell-Ford, Staff OTHER ATTENDEES (COMPANY/AGENCY/JURISDICTION) Jaiver Aguilar, URS Corp Skip Hudson, City of Columbia Gladys Cullum, Batesburg-Leesville Jonathan Marcy, Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce Brett Wallace, URS Corp Javier Aguilar, URS Corp Brian Piascik, URS Corp Robin Nalepa, The State Newspaper WELCOME/INTRODUCTIONS/CALL TO ORDER - Larry Cooke called meeting to order. Introductions of new/present members and visitors were made. APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 12TH MEETING MINUTES- Minutes was approved. BASE STUDIES REVIEW- Brett Wallace, URS, gave a brief overview regarding implementation and approach to the development of a commuter rail system. He noted that a phased approach may be considered as the best method and the opportunity to

gradually expand the current bus system will be essential in development of commuter rail. Mr. Wallace reviewed information on peer cities and their lessons learned concerning the implementation of some kind of commuter rail or high capacity transit service. Jaiver Aguilar, URS, presented literature findings relevant to the Central Midlands Commuter Rail Study. They included: 2025 COATS Long-Range Transportation Plan – which advocates for a multimodal approach to improve economic vitality of the Central Midlands region with increased mobility leading to a higher quality of life. Transit Element of the Long-Range Transportation Plan – which seeks to increase transit services, achieve financial sustainability and explore high capacity transportation options. CMRTA Transit Development Plan – continues to explore high capacity transit modes and to expand service to the underserved areas. South Carolina Multimodal Transportation Plan – focuses on multi-modal approaches to transportation challenges which are consistent with federal mandates such as ISTEA and TEA-21. South Carolina Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor Improvement Study – reviews two (2) corridors, I-77 and I-26, for creating connection from Columbia to the high-Speed rail corridor. Regional Population Projections – highlights growth areas in the Central Midlands region. Key Characteristics of the Lower Income Population – denotes the benefits and impacts for a higher quality of life with more opportunities for work, recreation, hospital and schools. 2004 Central Midlands Region Building Permits Report – reviews land use in terms of building permits with projections of density. Policies to be developed to encourage densities that support high capacity transit. PEER CITIES FINDINGS – Mr. Aguilar presented a summary of additional information received from telephone interviews conducted with transit/planning representatives in Eugene, OR; Burlington, VT; Greensboro, NC; Albuquerque, NM; Nashville, TN, and Charlotte, NC. He noted that one of the common themes that were found in order for the system to work was to find a “Champion” in each community to move the project forward. Others included: securing funding early in the process; coordination between agencies; inclusion of stakeholders such as freight operators and other government agencies early in the process; identifying corridors that have the

potential to be successful, not in terms of the highest ridership but in terms of convenience; avoiding environmental impacts; and the high level of public education and participation. MASS TRANSIT MODES AND TECHNOLOGIES –Brian Piascik, URS, discussed the different types of transit modes that can be considered for our region. They were express bus, bus rapid transit, heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, and high speed rail. He also reviewed the following modal attributes for each mode. These attributes consisted of capacity, size of the catchment area (willingness to drive/walk), length of corridor, average speed, station or stop spacing, cost per mile (developmental & operational both capital and right a way acquisition), power sources, and guide ways. Mr. Piascik explained that BRT, heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, and high speed rail are eligible for the FTA New Starts Program (federal funds). He also noted that express bus, SCDOT SmartRide, is the system that is currently operating in our region. He distinguished that express bus, bus rapid transit, and commuter rail may be appropriate for longer corridors with lower densities. That light and heavy rail services are appropriate for shorter corridors with higher densities. And that high speed rail is more appropriate for long intercity corridors. DATA REVIEW – Brett Wallace, URS, described that their will be an analysis of relevant demographic and transportation data used to support the modeling task associated with this study. Several maps were shown projecting the base 2000 data to the 2025 horizon year for population and employment. Mr. Wallace explained these maps and provided a clear explanation that vehicle trips will be converted to person trips and analyzed for each jurisdiction as part of the modeling process. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN – Brett Wallace discussed the public participation plan with the Committee. He mentioned that the URS team will be conducting stakeholder interviews with the identified list of members shown in the Plan. He requested any additional names of any of the Committee Members. He also noted that there will be a series public informational meeting, one in each corridor which will be targeted for mid to late February. Mr. Wallace also describe that presentations will be made to any local groups who has an interest in this plan. FREIGHT MOVEMENTS – Mr. Wallace discussed the current rail freight movements along the three candidate corridors for commuter rail service. The Newberry corridor freight movement is 15-19 trains per day. The Camden corridor operates (5) five trains per day (plus (2) Amtrak trains). And the Batesburg-Leesville corridor operates (7) seven trains per day. REVIEW SCHEDULE AND UPCOMING TASKS – Brett Wallace, URS, described the upcoming tasks for the Plan. They include development of transit scenarios including operational characteristics; interim and feeder service needs; evaluation of land uses that support transit; assessment of park-and-ride locations – interim and long range; potential ridership projections; and an assessment of the benefits for the identified transit service.

The next meeting is schedule for Thursday, February 9, 2006. CHAIRMAN REMARKS – Mr. Cooke and Mr. Whitaker thanked everyone for input and attendance for the meeting. OLD/NEW BUSINESS – None PUBLIC COMMENTS – None ADJOURN – Meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m.

From the January 27, 2006 print edition

100,000 jobs or bust? Transit's uptown agenda Center city must boost job growth or it can't match goals of $3B CATS plan Erik Spanberg Senior staff writer The city's top transit executive is telling local business leaders an accelerated growth rate for uptown jobs -- almost double the level of the past two decades -- must be reached within 20 years to make the light-rail system worth its multibillion-dollar public investment. Ron Tober, chief executive of Charlotte Area Transit System, says the burgeoning light-rail system depends on the city reaching 100,000 jobs uptown by 2025. If not, the five-corridor system, which has its first, $427 million leg under construction, won't be effective. "From my standpoint as a transit guy, we need major employers" growing in center city, Tober says. "Otherwise, we should not be investing all this money in regional transit." A combination of local and federal tax dollars funds the light-rail project. Uptown businesses now employ 65,000 in the center city, according to the Charlotte Chamber. Tony Crumbley, the chamber's vice president of research, says uptown employment has grown, on average, by 10,000 per decade since 1980. To reach Tober's goal, that would have to increase to 17,500 jobs during each of the next two decades. "To get there, we're going to have recruit another corporate headquarters to Charlotte," Tober says. "To support the type of investment we are making, we have to have at least 100,000 jobs. That's big growth from where we are now." Tober, who cited the need for job growth as part of a CATS presentation to the Charlotte Center City Partners board this month, plans similar discussions with other groups in the coming months. Many business leaders are startled at the lofty projections, he says. "The most common response I get is, 'Gee, that's good for me to know.' They didn't realize that was the case." The 100,000-job threshold emanates from economic projections by the Charlotte Department of Transportation, as well as models gauging ridership in other mass-transit systems. Jobs are more important than residential growth in the center city, Tober says. "As good as the condo developments are, what we need most are more jobs."

1

CATS hasn't made any projections on how much it stands to lose if uptown fails to reach 100,000 jobs by 2025. Politicians, planning experts and economic development officials applaud Tober's ambition, though they offer varying degrees of confidence in the city's ability to reach the target. The center city commercial real estate market encompasses 14.5 million square feet and a 6.6% vacancy rate, according to chamber data. That's a 7% increase from 13.5 million square feet in 2000. Walter Fields, a land planning consultant who was director of land-use planning for Charlotte-Mecklenburg during some of the city's highest-growth periods, says increasing the uptown employment base to 100,000 from 65,000 would require a 30% expansion of office space. "That's three or four Bank of America towers or a lot of smaller buildings," he says. In a broad sense, Fields says, CATS and city staff have enacted a series of zoning and transit policies designed to revamp a low-density metropolitan area into a high-density locale. Charlotte's light-rail plans represent a clear choice, he says. "Do you build a system to fit the city or do you rebuild the city to fit the system? We're trying to do the latter." Chamber President Bob Morgan says increasing center city employment should be viewed beyond direct recruiting of companies. He says recent public-private funding proposals for arts and cultural facilities, a NASCAR Hall of Fame and a minor league baseball stadium deserve support because they bring more jobs to uptown while also strengthening the area as a residential hub. "I think 100,000 (jobs) is pretty ambitious, based on our historic growth," Morgan says. "But the macro-economic trends are all moving toward the center city with additional residential growth, additional services and so on. Center city is still attractive." As for using incentives to lure more employers uptown, Morgan says, "I don't know." Charlotte Center City Partners executive Michael Smith, among others, believes initiatives can be developed to help spur uptown employment beyond the usual day-to-day efforts aimed at business recruiting and retention. Those plans have yet to be formulated, he says. Putting more jobs uptown could be made more difficult by ongoing competition within the city and region. As Fields notes, companies considering uptown also can choose among Ballantyne, SouthPark, the University area and attractive incentives in South Carolina when weighing their options.

2

"If you're a bottom-line guy, there are a lot of choices out there," Fields says. "And uptown is the most expensive one." An example of the competitive landscape is LendingTree Inc., which is close to a deal to relocate to Lancaster County from Ballantyne in south Charlotte, attracted, in part, by plum inducements. Those trends haven't escaped Tober's attention. "We're very concerned," he says. "And we're at least trying to keep those jobs in Mecklenburg County. I don't know if we'll be successful in the case of keeping LendingTree. One of the reasons I believe we should keep (CATS headquarters) located uptown is to reinforce the need to grow jobs there." Even so, tug-of-war battles within the region don't have to ensue, says Ronnie Bryant, president and chief executive of the Charlotte Regional Partnership. Instead, he believes the diversity Fields outlines points to significant economic recruiting opportunities for everyone. Companies looking for Class-A office space naturally consider one or two areas, led by uptown and Ballantyne, Bryant says. For manufacturing, they look at outlying areas, and so on. He says making mass transit succeed -- and solving inherent environmental and land-use problems along the way -- benefits the entire region, making Tober's goals important for all factions. City Councilman John Lassiter agrees. As head of the city's economic development committee, he envisions the 100,000-job goal being realized without adding recruiting incentives. Natural growth along the lines of Wachovia Corp.'s forthcoming office and cultural campus, combined with a growing center city retail and restaurant sector, will keep employment numbers on a steady rise, he says. "It's a stretch goal, but there are a number of things that are going to happen with the existing health and growth of businesses," Lassiter says. "You've got Wachovia, you've got Bank of America continuing to expand and you've got a variety of mixed-use projects with office components. It can be done." Smith, the Center City Partners executive, says many observers have overlooked a crucial component: the desire of younger generations to live and work in urban settings. That predilection, combined with looming retirement for waves of baby boomers, will force companies to respond by locating in the center city, he says. © 2006 American City Business Journals Inc.

3

Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy

Highways and Transit: Leveling the Playing Field in FederalTransportation PolicyEdward Beimborn and Robert Puentes1

December 2003 • The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform

Tran

spor

tati

on R

efor

m S

erie

sTr

ansp

orta

tion

Ref

orm

Ser

ies

1

I. Introduction

Automobile trips dominate the way we travel. Conventional wisdom assumes thatthis is the result of a fair competition between all transportation modes operatingunder the same federal policies and rules.

However, the conventional wisdom is wrong. Federal policies that governhighway and transit projects are not the same. In fact, these two modes, which federal lawspecifically expects to work together in the development of a balanced multi-modal system,are treated differently. This unlevel playing field has profound impacts on metropolitanAmerica and on how cities, older suburbs, and newer suburbs grow and develop.

Imagine that the urban, or metropolitan, portion of the interstate highway system wasbuilt according to the same procedures as those used or proposed to build major transitsystems. The result would be:

Only 50 percent of the capital costs for major highways would be paid from federalsources rather than 80 or 90 percent. Cities would have to aggressively compete amongone another for their highway funds based on the quality and justification of the proposedproject. The rules for the competition would be subject to change without any input. Somestates, cities, and metropolitan areas would never be able to build any highways even ifthere was a pervasive desire by the public and the local officials to do so. Only a few high-way segments could begin construction in any year.

If major highways projects were built by the same rules as transit, highways would needa congressional “sponsor” who would secure an earmark by competing with other membersfor scarce funds. Cities unable to get an earmark would have fewer freeways. Local govern-ments would have to demonstrate that they have sufficient funds to pay for their share ofthe costs of building the highways. They would also have to demonstrate that they wouldbe able to operate and maintain these highways, as well as their existing highways, into the future.

Federal transportation policy is essentially an unfair competition between highways andtransit. Despite a number of reforms in the past decade, federal rules remain stackedagainst transit, and funding highway projects is far easier. This brief compares how newtransit and highway programs are treated differently by federal legislation and policy andhow those differences lead to an unlevel playing field, distorting good local planning,management, and decision making.

A substantial portion of highway funding would likely have to come from local propertytaxes, local sales taxes, or local income taxes. Often there would be limited state contribu-tion to the costs. In many instances, public referenda would have to be approved to getlocal authorization for project funding.

Also, highway projects would have to compete with police, fire, education, and otherprograms for funding. In times of budget shortages, highways could be closed completelyor eliminated.

The highway would need to be justified on an explicit measure of cost effectiveness.Agencies would have to specifically state how they would manage the land use impacts oftheir highways. Finally, intensive mandated studies would have to precede the project andwould be subject to an independent review by the federal government and an open compar-ison to other projects.

In short, if the rules that apply to new transit projects were applied to highways, highwayconstruction would be very difficult and subject to intense political scrutiny and debate.There would be fewer urban and suburban highways and the shape of metropolitan areasin the United States would be radically different. Lifestyles of Americans, their mobility,and the health of the economy would be different from what we now have.

A common theme in transportation is that transportation decisions are best made bylocal elected officials at the metropolitan level. Decisions on the future form and nature ofthe transportation system are best made by those who are most affected and by those whohave the best understanding of day-to-day transportation problems.2

Good local decisions require that various transportation options be compared equallyand consistently on their merits. Local and metropolitan decision-makers should then beable to choose the best set or combination of transportation strategies that meet localviews, values, and directions. Thus, local leaders should be able to pursue the best trans-portation alternatives for their communities, rather than the most easily funded andapproved alternative.

Unfortunately, this has not been the case in national transportation policy. Transit andhighway systems are treated differently in federal policy, law, and regulations. Local govern-ments are faced with major difficulties in obtaining funds for new transit systems. At thesame time, highway funding can be obtained with relative ease. This unlevel playing fieldcan distort decisions at the local level.

This brief will discuss the policy and regulatory barriers to considering and implementingnew transit projects, and the relative ease of highway development. Additionally, it willhighlight the differences in the way new transit and highway programs are treated in fed-eral legislation. Finally, it will suggest reforms to level the playing field between highwaysand transit as Congress debates reauthorization of the federal transportation laws.

II. Background

The decades from the 1950s to the early 1990s were halcyon days for highway plan-ning and construction. During these years, through a massive expansion in thefederal highway assistance, America built a 43,000 mile system of interstate high-ways: “the largest engineered structure in the world.”3 These highways literally

changed the landscape of America.The “Interstate Era”, as it is commonly known, survived because of a broad consensus

forged among transportation and political leaders united in the belief that the highway sys-tem was essential to the health and security of the nation. However, according to a FederalHighway Administration publication, by the end of the 1980s that consensus had all butdisappeared.4

At the same time the interstate highway system was nearing completion, our nation’stransit network had gone from a publicly regulated private industry to a public utility withits own demands for federal funding.5 The federal transit program evolved from a relatively

2 December 2003 • The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform

“Transit and

highway systems

are treated

differently in

federal policy,

law, and regula-

tions.”

low bureaucratic level at the Department of Commerce to the Department of Housing andUrban Development (HUD) in 1964, to the Department of Transportation in 1968 whereit became the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (later renamed the Federal Tran-sit Administration), an agency on bureaucratic par with the Federal HighwayAdministration but considerably smaller with much less funding.6

At the same time, the environmental movement began to directly challenge and questionproponents of an expanded highway network. This movement, which was generally non-existent in 1956, established new national commitments that were often at odds withbuilders of the interstate system. Faced with considerable backlash over urban freewayexpansion, city leaders also began to establish their own set of transportation goals and pol-icy priorities.7

As a result, federal policy began to shift, as well. One particular emphasis of federal trans-portation policy at this time was on promoting a level playing field for officials trying towrestle with the challenge of creating a balanced, intermodal transportation network. A1990 statement of national transportation policy specifically noted that subsidies, statutes,and regulations play an important part in distorting state and local transportation decisions.8

The congressional transportation reforms in the 1990s—the Intermodal Surface Trans-portation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in 1991 and its offspring the Transportation Equity Actfor the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998—sought to address these distortions. For example,when ISTEA was drafted and debated, the concept of equal matching funds for highwaysand transit was widely endorsed.9 In the end, these laws gave states and metropolitan areasthe certainty in funding and the flexibility in program design necessary to attempt a rangeof transportation solutions. Spurred on by these reforms, a small but significant number ofstates and metropolitan areas began experimenting with transportation policies offering amore balanced mix between highway expansion and preservation, and between road build-ing and transit expansion.

Among ISTEA’s major reforms designed to bring more parity between highways and transit:

• More even matching requirements. In the decades prior to ISTEA, a given amount ofnon-Federal money could leverage more Federal highway dollars than it could transitdollars. Transit projects that were financed with urban system highway funds generallyreceived a 75 percent federal share. The federal-aid urban system program was createdin 1970 to address transportation problems in metropolitan areas by permitting thefederal financing of urban highway and mass transit projects.10 ISTEA’s authorsintended to remedy this disparity in previous federal law by setting the federal/statematch ratio for most highway and transit projects at 80 percent federal and 20 percentstate and local. ISTEA retained the 90/10 federal/state matching ratio for interstateprojects. Certain traffic and safety programs had a 100 percent federal share.

• Funding flexibility. The “flexible funding” provisions of ISTEA and TEA-21 refer tothe programs identified in the legislation whose funds may be used for transit or high-way projects. The significance of these provisions cannot be overstated. The billdrafters intended to give planners and decision-makers at the state and local level theauthority to transfer funds between highways and transit, with the direction of thetransfers unspecified, but to be determined based on locally defined goals. Amongother things, this freedom of financing has handed states and metropolitan planningorganizations (MPOs), along with local political, corporate, civic, and constituencyleaders, greater opportunity to tailor transportation spending to regional needs andmarket realities.

To date the experience with this flexibility has been limited. The majority hasoccurred in one state (California) where one-third of their funds for FYs 1992–2001were transferred from highway to transit projects. They were followed by New Yorkwith 16.5 percent, Pennsylvania at 6 percent, and Massachusetts and Illinois at 3.3percent each. All of the remaining states were less than 3 percent with 27 states flexing

3December 2003 • The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform

less than 1 percent of their eligible funds.11 While this program appeared to provideopportunities for transit agencies and local areas to have more flexibility in how theyspend their transportation dollars, the reality is that, except for a few notable excep-tions, the process is hardly used by most states.

• Major investment studies. ISTEA also sought to balance the process by which metro-politan areas considered major new transportation investments. Prior to ISTEA, statesand metropolitan areas wishing to use federal funds to construct new large scale transitsystems were required to justify the project through a detailed analysis of alternativesand cost effectiveness in addition to the environmental review required by the NationalEnvironmental Protection Act (NEPA).12 However, the playing field was unlevel as nosuch requirements were placed on new highway investments. Environmental impactstudies for highways were often done after engineering started, and analysis of costeffectiveness was not done at all.13

ISTEA specifically required the secretary of transportation to initiate a rulemakingproceeding to conform review requirements for transit projects to comparable require-ments for highway projects. The resulting regulations required major investmentstudies (MIS) for any significant capital project that used federal funds. This generallyincluded projects such as freeway or arterial widenings or expansions of more than onemile in length or new rail transit lines or extensions of more than one mile in length.The MIS was intended, through alternatives analysis with extensive public input, todetermine the best transportation strategy for a given corridor. However, as discussedbelow, TEA-21 eliminated the MIS as a planning requirement.14

Despite these advances initiated by ISTEA, federal rules remain stacked against transit.The next section discusses the specific federal regulations that set the unlevel playing field.It generally focuses on examples where rules and regulations exist, perhaps appropriately,on transit projects but do not exist for highway projects.

III. Federal Policies That Unlevel the Playing Field

Consider a city or region that wants to upgrade its transportation system. A properanalysis of needs and opportunities would consider all reasonable options in anevenhanded way. These would include both highway and transit options as well aspolicy changes. Costs of the alternatives should be thoroughly investigated as well

as their impacts on land use patterns of the region. Furthermore, the community shouldthink about environmental impacts of the alternatives and how they affect the future econ-omy of the area. The community should be able to decide what is best based on consistentpolicies and programs that do not tilt the decision one way or another. Unfortunately this isnot the reality. There are major differences on how highway and transit projects are fundedand administered. In fact, two separate systems govern these two transportation modes.

Through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the U.S. DOT’s program for identify-ing and funding new fixed guideway transit projects (e.g. rail, bus rapid transit, trolley,ferry), is referred to as the New Starts Program. These funds are housed in the FTA’s Capi-tal Investments Grant and Loan Program, which is also referred to by its U.S. CodeSection: 5309. In addition to the New Starts program (which constitutes 40 percent of thecapital program), Section 5309 also provides assistance for rail modernization (40 percent)and bus and bus facilities (20 percent).15

Since the New Starts program is the way the federal government funds new transit proj-ects, it is the primary transit program highlighted in this brief. The New Starts program isused to provide discretionary financial assistance and has been used to expand or initiatehundreds of heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, and bus rapid transit systems which can-not be funded with formula, flexible, or local funds. It is intended to supplement the transitformula programs which are not funded at a high enough level to allow metropolitan areas

4 December 2003 • The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform

“Despite

advances,

federal rules

remain stacked

against transit.”

to fund major fixed guideway investments. The term ‘new starts’ is a bit of a misnomersince it includes both expansions of existing systems as well the initiation of totally newtransit technologies within metropolitan areas.

It is important to highlight this program in order to illustrate how unlevel federal trans-portation policies can skew local, metropolitan, and state investment decisions. Everymetropolitan area already has an important and extensive highway network. However, theprocess of building, widening or extending this network is fundamentally different thatdoing the same to a transit system. For one thing, states do not seek permission to buildhighway projects. In fact, the U.S. Code states specifically that the appropriation of high-way funds “shall in no way infringe on the sovereign rights of the States to determinewhich projects shall be federally financed.”16 This is dramatically different from the abilityof areas contemplating new fixed guideway systems which are prevented from spendingfederal funds on these projects unless they comply with rigorous federal requirements, asdiscussed below.

This section will provide a comparison of how highway and transit programs—especiallyNew Starts—are treated differently by federal legislation and policy and how those differ-ences lead to an unlevel playing field, distorting good local planning, management, anddecision making.

5December 2003 • The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform

Table 1. Comparison of Rules Governing Federal Transit and Highway Programs

Transit (New Starts) Highway

• Current federal law authorizes as much as an 80 percentfederal share. FTA practice is to recommend only projectswith a maximum 60 percent federal share, in accord withcongressional appropriations committee direction. TheBush administration has proposed a 50 percent or lessmatch in SAFETEA.

• New Start money is highly competitive.• Non-federal funds are typically local; sources vary, com-

pete with other programs, and may require referenda.

• Extensive list including cost effectiveness and land useimpacts and financial plan.

• “Transit supportive land use patterns” is a key projectselection criterion.

• Peer comparison is mandatory and reported to Congress. • There is a detailed process used to compare alternative

projects.

• Information and data is publicly accessible and transparent.

• Federal match is 80–90percent depending on program.

• Program funds are allo-cated by formula.

• State funds are derivedmainly from fuel andlicense fess. Normally a dedicated fund that cannot be used for nontransportation purposes.17

• Primarily environmentalmeasures, no requirementfor cost effectiveness orland use analysis.

• Land use impacts of proj-ects not considered.

• Peer comparison is rare.• Alternative comparisons

are optional at state level.

• Information and data isdifficult to access andunclear for the generalpublic.

A. Federal Funding

B. Project Criteria and Justification

C. Land Use Impacts

D. Performance Evaluation

E. Information Trans-parency andAccessibility

A. Federal FundingIn general, federal funding for highway projects is more secure and generous than for tran-sit projects; making highway projects easier to finance.

As mentioned, the primary financial source for federal support of new transit systems isthe New Starts program. TEA-21 authorized $8.2 billion in New Starts funding throughfiscal year 2003 which is about 20 percent of the $41 billion for all FTA programs. It isimportant to note that only $6.1 billion was “guaranteed,” and Congress has not providedany non-guaranteed funding for New Starts. Formula grants, which can be used for somecapital investments (such as equipment and rolling stock, as well as planning, design, andevaluation work) but not solely construction of major new systems or extensions, made upabout half of all transit funding (See Appendix).18

The New Starts program is totally discretionary and is highly regulated by the U.S. DOT.According to the GAO, the New Starts funding is oversubscribed and, as a result, competi-tion for these funds is intense.19 Projects must progress through a regional review ofalternatives, develop preliminary engineering plans, and meet FTA’s approval for finaldesign before final approval is given and the project is recommended for a multi-year fullfunding grant agreement (FFGA).20 It is not unusual for projects to go on and on for manyyears to overcome each barrier and step. In TEA-21 Congress authorized nearly 200 sepa-rate transit projects, but very few of them will actually be built since the expenditure levelsauthorized were far less than required to fund them all.21 It is important to note that theFFGA serves as a commitment of federal funds, however, each project’s share of federalfunds is subject to the annual congressional appropriations process.

Highway funds, on the other hand, are not competitive and do not require congressionalearmarks. Receipts in the highway account of the federal highway trust fund are distrib-uted to states based on “allocation formulas,” which differ somewhat from one federalprogram to another. Once funds are allocated, the states can distribute them among proj-ects as they see fit. Federal oversight is limited only to ensure that they comply with federalguidelines and accepted design standards. This reduces the complexity and difficulty of theprocess of developing projects. With an assured source of funding, projects can be plannedand implemented over time without concern about how they compare to projects in otherstates.

Another inequity remains in terms of the total percentage of project costs the federalgovernment is willing to contribute to highway and transit projects. As mentioned, ISTEAmaintained an 80 percent funding ratio for formula and other discretionary programs butcapped funding rates for transit New Starts at up to 80 per cent of total project costs. Butin reality, actual funding rates are much lower. Congress recently directed the FTA not toapprove New Starts projects with more than a 60 percent federal share.22 In addition, theBush administration’s FY 2004 budget reaffirms an earlier recommendation to reduce thefederal match to 50 percent beginning in 2004.23 In contrast, highway funding continues toenjoy a federal matching ratio of 90 percent for improvements and maintenance on theinterstate highway system and an 80 percent rate for most other projects. The Bush admin-istration proposes that this ratio be at similar levels in the next reauthorization bill.24

Furthermore, the high federal match results in inefficient use of highway dollars. Statesoften use state funds for their matching portion of highway projects with little or no fund-ing required from the local area.25 Local officials sometimes view these projects as ‘freemoney’ and eagerly seek to implement them. It is often tempting to load up the projectswith costs and features that may not be needed, but are easily accommodated when some-one else is paying the cost. This can lead to inefficient use of federal resources and afailure to provide good stewardship for federal investments in highways.

In contrast, costs for most transit projects must be kept low since local sources of rev-enue must be identified and commitments for operating costs and local shares of capitalcosts must be provided as a key project justification criterion. In the last year for whichdata is available, federal funds provided 47.2 percent of the capital funds used by transitagencies while state sources provided 10.7 percent and local sources provided 42.0 per-

6 December 2003 • The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform

cent. It is important to note that at this time, the federal allowable share for all FTA capitalprojects was still at least 80 percent (Figure 1).

Local funds for transit services come from a variety of sources, depending on the com-munity. Commonly used sources are sales taxes dedicated to transit, local income taxes,fuel taxes or property taxes. In many cases the transit agency competes for these funds withother local needs such as education, health care, police, or fire protection. In places wherethe transit systems receive money from their state government, this can also come from avariety of sources: dedicated portions of a transportation fund or though state general pur-pose revenue sources such as income tax or sales taxes.26 Here again, the transit agency hasto compete with other state expenditure programs for funding.

When a city contemplates a major new transit investment, they may need to put togethera financial package that is subject to voter approval. These may involve new sources of tax-ation such as a local sales tax, fuel tax, income tax, or property tax assessments. Thesereferenda can often be highly contentious and there are many cases where communitieshave gone to the voters several times to gain approval.27

The end result of these funding inequities is that in some cases they can lead to skewedinvestment decisions. A recent GAO report confirmed this when it found that the imbal-ance between the federal highway and transit match, in particular, could “bias the localdecision making process in favor of highway projects.”28 This conclusion was drawn frominterviews the GAO conducted with project sponsors and those responsible for planningand programming transportation dollars.

7December 2003 • The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform

“The end result

of these funding

inequities is that

they can lead to

skewed invest-

ment decisions.”

Figure 1. Sources of Funds for Transit Capital Expenditures 1990–2000

Source: “Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges and Transit: 2002 Conditions and Performance”, U.S. Department

of Transportation, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2002cpr/ chapter 6., Exhibit 6–27.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%■ State Share■ Local Share■ Federal Share

2000199919971995199319911990

B. Project Criteria and Justification Unlike highway projects, new fixed guideway transit projects are subject to intense federaloversight and multiple project criteria and justifications.

TEA-21 directs FTA to evaluate and rate candidate New Starts projects as an input toFederal funding decisions and at specific milestones throughout each project’s planningand development. FTA requires that a comprehensive planning and project developmentprocess be used to assist local decision-makers in the evaluation of alternatives in specifiedcorridors and to select the most appropriate improvement for the corridor. Planning andproject development for New Starts projects is coordinated with metropolitan planning andNEPA review processes.

New Start proposals must undergo a comprehensive multiyear planning process subjectto detailed regulations from the FTA. Besides the consideration of environmental impacts,New Starts must be reviewed on the basis of their impacts on employment, operating effi-ciency, cost effectiveness, land use policies and level of local funding commitment.29 Forexample, projects are judged on their ability to serve low income households, their ability togenerate employment near transit stations, and how well the agency has implementedpolices to lead to transit supportive development patterns. It is important to note that thesecriteria are broad and reach well beyond the transportation system itself. They do not sub-scribe to the belief that a transit project should be judged simply on its ability to reduce orsolve a metropolitan area’s congestion problems (Table 2).

In addition, projects are subject to a rigorous cost effectiveness process to determine theperformance of the federal transit investment in terms of the incremental project costdivided by transportation system user benefits. User benefits consist of weighted traveltime savings as determined by advanced travel forecasting models. FTA regulations are veryextensive and provide very specific financial analysis techniques and assumptions and pro-vide a way to consistently compare projects between locations.30 Complying with theseregulations can take several years of intense study often costing millions of dollars.

8 December 2003 • The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform

Table 2. Federal Transit Administration New Starts Project Justification Criteria

Criteria Measure(s)Mobility Improvements • Hours of transportation system user benefits

• Low-income households served • Employment near stations

Environmental Benefits • Change in regional pollutant emissions • Change in regional energy consumption • EPA air quality designation

Operating Efficiencies • Operating cost per passenger mile

Cost Effectiveness • Incremental cost per hour of transportation system user benefit

Transit Supportive Land Use and Future Patterns • Existing land use • Transit supportive plans and policies • Performance and impacts of policies • Other land use considerations

Other Factors • Project benefits not reflected by other New Starts criteria

Source: Federal Transit Administration, “Planning, Project Development, and Funding for New Starts Projects.” http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/policy/ns/

The cost effectiveness criteria are used to demonstrate that a project will attract new rider-ship and those riders will benefit in terms of time, cost, and convenience savings. This allowsFTA to compare projects between communities and to assure that chosen projects give thegreatest return on federal investment. The House Appropriations Committee went further inits FY 2004 transportation bill by saying specifically that the federal government should allo-cate transportation dollars in a manner that maximizes benefits relative to costs and that theFTA should “develop more stringent measures by which to rate New Starts projects.”31

Without a doubt, these factors make for better transit projects. Agencies proposing projectsare forced to think of how their projects will make better communities. The process of doingthis is long and arduous. It requires an active planning process with participation of manygroups and interests with active political champions who often stake their careers on a project.

In sharp contrast, the level of analysis required for highway expansion or the constructionof new facilities is less stringent. Highway projects need to consider environmental impactsin order to comply with the NEPA if they are determined to “significantly affect the environ-ment.”32 In that case, an environmental impact statement or assessment is needed. Thestatements deal with issues such as noise and air quality effects, impacts on natural areassuch as wetlands, and other ecosystem impacts but the scope of the project and criteria con-sidered often stops there.33 Seldom is there any attempt to deal with issues such as localemployment impacts, services to low income neighborhoods, or land use policy.

Cost effectiveness analysis is used only to a limited extent and been applied unevenly tohighway programs. While some agencies attempt to produce cost/benefit analysis for high-way projects, others ignore this and propose and implement projects that have not had acost effectiveness test. Projects are chosen in a convoluted process that can be highly polit-ical and is often inefficient.

However, benefit-cost analysis has been advocated for highway projects for years. In1977, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials published aguide on conducting benefit-cost analysis for highways and other transportation projects.34

Other textbooks, research reports, and publications discuss the importance of analyzinghighway projects using benefit-cost techniques. Yet, as long as localities are able to pur-chase local benefits with state and federal funds, local governments have incentives tooverstate highway project benefits and understate costs.

ISTEA established the Major Investment Study (MIS) process to provide a sound basis forreaching major investment decisions in metropolitan areas by requiring a comprehensiveanalysis of all reasonable alternatives for addressing a transportation problem. ISTEA’s metro-politan planning regulations required MIS’s to be undertaken to evaluate the effectivenessand cost-effectiveness of alternative investments or strategies in attaining local, state, andnational goals and objectives. The MIS analysis considered the benefits and costs of invest-ments related to such factors as mobility improvements, social, economic, and environmentaleffects, safety, operating efficiencies, land use and economic development, financing, andenergy consumption.35 However, TEA-21 eliminated the MIS as a way to determine benefitsand costs of major transportation investments. But the playing field was left unlevel sincemajor transit investments seeking New Starts funding are still required to go through FTA’srequirements for an alternatives analysis, which are very similar to the MIS requirementsunder ISTEA. Similar analysis requirements do not apply to highway projects.

Highways and transit projects are inherently different in what is perceived as benefitsand costs, yet there is much that could be learned if highway projects were subject to simi-lar criteria. Wise investment of highway funds should include a concern about what will begained for the money expended. Hence, decision-makers and citizens would benefit fromtransit-like review of highway projects.

C. Land Use ConsiderationsThe relationship between land use and transportation is a fundamental concern in trans-portation policy. Everything that happens to land use has transportation implications andevery transportation action affects land use. Actions by transportation agencies shape land

9December 2003 • The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform

10 December 2003 • The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform

“Local areas pro-

posing major

investments

in transit are

required to

analyze land use

impacts and to

take proactive

steps to assure

that transit

investment is

coordinated

with land use.”

use by providing infrastructure to improve accessibility and mobility. This increases theutility of land and leads to more intensive land use. Land development generates travel,and travel generates the need for new facilities, which in turn increases accessibility andattracts further development. The question of whether transportation influences develop-ment or whether land use dictates transportation has been a matter of ongoing concernamong transportation professionals since the beginning of transportation planning.36

Much has been written in recent years about urban sprawl, new urbanism, transit-ori-ented development, smart growth, and other ways to bring about a closer tie between landuse and transportation. A comprehensive review of literature related to urban sprawl andits effects concluded that there is a general agreement in the literature that sprawl leads tomore vehicle miles of travel, more automobile trips, and less cost-effective transit serv-ices.37 There was also some agreement that sprawl means higher household costs of traveland greater social costs.

These principles have been well recognized by the FTA in their guidelines for New Startsand alternatives analysis. Local areas proposing major investments in transit are required toanalyze land use impacts and to take proactive steps to assure that transit investment iscoordinated with land use. This is done to get a good return on federal investment by inte-grating transit service with economic development and residential activity.

Land use rightly is a local responsibility and it is appropriate that federal and state agen-cies defer to local governments on land use decisions. As mentioned, federal criteriarequire that transit projects be rated based on if they have transit supportive land use plansand policies and the impacts of those policies. These requirements can be challenging fora transit agency that must address land use considerations beyond their control. This isespecially true with regard to commuter rail projects operating in suburban communitieswith caps on residential or commercial densities. Nevertheless, the connection betweenland use and transportation is of paramount importance, and it is useful for transit agen-cies and local government to address these issues collaboratively.

No such land use provision exists for highway investments. Highways can have a pro-found impact on the pace and shape of metropolitan growth. Highway spending helpsdefine the boundaries of metropolitan areas, determining where households and firms canlocate. In many metropolitan areas, transportation policies generally support the expansionof road capacity at the fringe of metropolitan areas and beyond, enabling people and busi-nesses to settle miles from urban centers but still benefit from metropolitan life. Thespatial implications of these investments cannot be underestimated.

Highway projects often lead to development activities that generate traffic that negatesthe value and performance of highway improvements. Highways designed to move trafficefficiently become snarled with local traffic needing to turn in and out of developmentsalong the highway. If these are poorly planned, there are excessive vehicle conflicts, con-gestion, and safety hazards. The money spent for these projects is wasted as traffic buildsup and creates a new set of problems that will require more spending. Furthermore, shiftsin development from one part of a city to another can lead to wasted infrastructure andloss of jobs and economic activity elsewhere. Highway projects need to consider how theywill affect land use.

Local governments need to provide good stewardship of their transportation assets.Tools such as access management interchange area planning and better coordinationbetween government units can make a difference in protecting highway investments. Forexample access management provides a way to control the number and type of accesspoints on major roads to help traffic flow better and safer, but its use is scattered acrossthe country with no common federal policy or guidelines. There are no requirements thatlocal governments consider land use effects for federal highway dollars, but it is an essen-tial part of new transit investments. Highway programs could benefit substantially if localand state agencies were asked to show how they will protect the investment by better inter-face with land use.

D. Performance EvaluationFurthermore, while transit agencies follow useful and important reporting and evaluationguidelines for their projects and systems, highway agencies have less effective procedures.

Beyond just New Starts projects, transit operators are required to submit annual reportsof their performance, effectiveness and cost effectiveness to the FTA as part of the Uni-form System of Accounts for use in the National Transit Database (NTD, formerly section15) requirements for continued federal funding. Transit agencies are very diverse and toprovide consistent data, all agencies must meet the same accounting and reporting require-ments.38 Each year, almost 600 transit operators report to FTA on transit activities in morethan 400 urbanized areas. Nationally, 85,000 transit vehicles, 7,000 miles of rail track,2,000 rail stations, and 1,000 maintenance facilities are included in these reports. TheNTD, as the repository for this information, serves as the primary tool to support transitoperational and financial decision making on a national level.

The NTD provides a comprehensive source of transit data and is used to support federal,state, and local public investment decisions. NTD data is used to apportion FTA fundingamong urbanized areas, according to legislatively-mandated formulas. Further, data is usedat various levels of government to guide policy development, to assist in establishingnational priorities, and to shape public planning and strategic decision making efforts. Forexample, the database has been recently changed to provide better reporting of safety andsecurity information.39

This process allows transit agencies to use a consistent data set and to compare theirperformance with peer agencies and to track trends over time. Agencies can quickly deter-mine if their performance is getting better or worse and to see how they are doing incomparison to similar agencies. This is an unquestionably useful procedure that leads tobetter management of transit systems.

Highway agencies have a different process. The Highway Performance Monitoring Sys-tem (HPMS) provides data that reflects the extent, condition, performance, use, andoperating characteristics of the Nation’s highways. It was developed in 1978 as a nationalhighway transportation system database. It includes limited data on all public roads, moredetailed data for a sample of the arterial and collector functional systems, and certainstatewide summary information. The HPMS includes a statistically drawn sample of over100,000 highway sections containing data on current physical and operating characteris-tics as well as projections of future travel growth on a section-by-section basis.40

While the HPMS has data similar to the NTD, its use for evaluation of highway pro-grams in relation to other peer agencies is only just beginning. Work has been done outsidethe U.S. DOT that compares states to each other and documents trends over time.41 Thisprocess is controversial and some state and local agencies are reluctant to compare theirperformance to other agencies. Consistencies among data and collection methods varybetween agencies and many agencies feel that they are ‘unique’ and cannot be compared toothers.42 Comparisons between highway agency performances are difficult and requireextensive effort to gather data from diverse sources. Transit agency peer comparisons arevery easy, with consistent reports readily available on the internet. The difference betweenthe state of the art and attitudes towards use of information leads to a different set of rulesfor transit and for highway systems. This process is a useful one for transportation decisionmaking and should be applied equally to both modes.

E. Information Transparency and AccessibilityFinally, transit agencies must regularly disclose transit spending and other data, or risk los-ing funding. Highway spending statistics, on the other hand, are more difficult to accessand interpret.

Transit agency profiles are developed from the NTD which show transit system charac-teristics on a uniform basis as well as performance measures and measures of effectivenessfor services and costs.43 These profiles are updated yearly for every transit agency in thenation and posted on the internet in a clear format that is easy to read and understand by

1 1December 2003 • The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform

the general public. The requirements for the NTD are codified in federal law and receipt ofcertain transit funds is directly tied to compliance. Transit agencies risk the loss of section5307, urbanized area funds if they do not comply with the NTD reporting requirements.44

Extensive and detailed data collected by the FHWA, on the other hand, is not accessibleby the general public over the internet, nor is it presented in a format intended to bedigested by the general public. Indeed, the HPMS is a principal source of the data used todevelop the annual Highway Statistics publications by FHWA as well as the Conditions andPerformance Report to Congress, which are available over the internet. However, a statedobjective of the HPMS that the database itself will be “publicly accessible” and that theFHWA would make access to the HPMS database available over the internet “in the shortterm”, but it has not yet done so.45

The FHWA also maintains a Fiscal Management Information System (FMIS) which is afinancial database of all highway projects that have been financed using federal funds.However, even though the FMIS has been in place since the early days of the Interstateera, published information on spending by recipient and program is limited and often sev-eral years behind. The raw FMIS data used to produce much of the quantitative analysis inthis report is difficult to work with, and is not available on the World Wide Web.

The end result is that it is very difficult to determine actual spending of federal trans-portation dollars for roadway projects. The federal government leaves it up to the states tobuild and maintain the nation’s roadway network but do not require states to provide thepublic with detailed information about state investment decisions using those funds. Itcontinues to be easier for the general public to determine where private institutions likebanks and thrifts make investments, (thanks to the federal Home Mortgage Disclosure Act)and to hold these institutions accountable, than to know how transportation agenciesspend their money.

Clearly, highways and transit are operating on an unlevel playing field in terms of federaltransportation policy. What is not as clear, though intuitive, is whether these policies haveresulted in any fewer transit projects than would have been built if policies were more bal-anced. This section examines the recent discussion in one metropolitanarea—Milwaukee—to illustrate how policies can skew investment decisions on the stateand local levels.

IV. Milwaukee Metropolitan Area Case Study

Milwaukee seemed like a logical choice for a new transit start. The city has areasof high density with mixed uses that were developed around a strong bus tran-sit system and seemed like a natural for rail transit service. Jennifer Dorn, theFTA administrator, stated in a recent speech during a visit there that Milwau-

kee had sufficient population density to support rail transit.46

And unlike many other cities and metropolitan areas, Milwaukee remains fairly “central-ized” in terms of metropolitan employment location. Nearly two-thirds of the jobs arewithin ten miles of the central business district and over 20 percent are within threemiles.47 Overall, the city did lose residents during the 1990s, but the downtown area saw aslight increase in population as well as an increase in density.48

The metropolitan area also had a strong, visible champion of rail transit in MilwaukeeMayor John Norquist. In the early 1990’s Mayor Norquist founded the Alliance for FutureTransit in Milwaukee, a business organization designed to promote light rail transit in thearea. The transit agency in the area, Milwaukee County Transit System (MCTS), was the25th largest transit bus agency in the nation in 2001 with a good fare recovery rate: (34percent of the agency’s operating expenses came from passenger fares in 2001). It also hada solid management that was ready to run a system in coordination with a good bus serv-ices to its community. MCTS received the Outstanding Achievement Award - the highestaward a transit agency can receive—by the American Public Transportation Association inboth 1987 and in 1999.49

12 December 2003 • The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform

Furthermore, the area had an inside track to federal funding by the set aside of nearly$300 million dollars of ICE (interstate cost estimate) funds to be used for a new transitsystem for the area. This funding was explicitly set aside in the ISTEA legislation for transitpurposes in the Milwaukee area.

Work on fixed guideway transit planning in Milwaukee has a long and complex history.The metropolitan planning organization (MPO), the Southeastern Wisconsin PlanningCommission, included major transit corridors as part of its long-range transportation planfor the region. The most significant effort in this regard was the Milwaukee East-West Cor-ridor Study conducted during the mid-1990s. The corridor included a regional medicalcenter, two large universities, a major league baseball stadium, Milwaukee’s downtown andfestival grounds, high rise housing units and neighborhood shopping centers. This Corridorwas earmarked in TEA-21 as one of 114 new rail projects to begin construction by 2003.

The study cost millions of dollars, included hundreds of meetings and involved over 5years of effort. This study was done following FTA procedures and produced 29 technicalreports that fill up an entire bookshelf. All aspects of the alternatives were studied—impacts on air, noise, flooding, parks, wetlands, historic areas, properties, businesses,economic development and natural areas as well as costs, ridership potential and policiesto enhance land use around transit stops. In addition, extensive public meetings were heldto define the project scope and to get reactions to the alternatives.

The study eventually resulted in a 430-page ‘working draft’ of a Major InvestmentStudy/Draft Environmental Impact Study. This was issued for preliminary comments andreaction prior to an ‘official’ draft EIS. This report described multiple alternatives of differ-ent light rail or bus system alignments to be built in the area and included 21 letters fromfederal, state and local agencies and the private sector on the project. Several of the mostpromising transit technologies were featured and designed to address freeway capacity,serve low income neighborhoods, and provide a focus for high density urban development.50

However, the official draft environmental impact statement was never issued, and theprocess was officially terminated by the FHWA in 2000.51 These reports now gather dust asthey sit on the shelves of the planners who worked on them. The project is all but dead inthe water with just $91.5 million left of $289 million that was appropriated in 1991.

What happened? How could a process be so close to reaching a conclusion and then becast aside? What value was there to spend so much time and money by so many people todo all those complicated studies and to have it all come for naught? Opinions differ, butthe process eventually fell apart on the issue of money and differences in federal fundingpolicies for highways and transit. According to the FTA, the result was a lack of local con-sensus on funding options.52

A key issue was how to pay for the local share of the project. Transit in the Milwaukeearea uses state transportation dollars and local funds for its non-federal costs. Local fundscome from the property tax and must compete with other government services for funds.Property taxes are high in Wisconsin and local elected officials advocate increases at theirpolitical peril. In 1994, advisory referenda on the transit corridor project were voted downin five suburban communities. According to polls, most residents supported light rail andthought it would be reliable, provide environmental benefits, and help low-income peopleget to work. However, a majority also considered it to be too expensive.53

Wisconsin Department of Transportation officials said there was no state money to beused for the non-federal share of a light rail transit project, but that it could be used for ahighway project.54 Money was available for highways, but not for transit. Faced with nostate funds, conflicts arose between central city and suburban state legislators and localofficials over who should pay the local share. Outlying suburban municipalities went onrecord opposing the project despite reports that showed a light rail system would not onlycontribute significantly to economic development in the city of Milwaukee—but wouldprovide such benefits to the entire region.55 No consensus or agreement could be reached.Eventually state legislators prohibited any expenditure to even study the issue of light railin the Milwaukee area, thus ending the process.56

13December 2003 • The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform

Meanwhile, a highway study has been completed recommending a $6.23 billion dollarplan to expand and reconstruct the regional freeway system—more than ten times the costof the transit corridor project. Documents associated with the plan tout the fact that fund-ing for the project will be the responsibility of the state (10–20 percent) and the federalgovernment (80–90 percent) with no local funding.57 This study has been adopted by theregional planning commission and endorsed by six of seven county boards (MilwaukeeCounty being the exception) and written into state legislation.

Faced with a choice of no local costs for highways and substantial local costs for transit,the decision was easy, but it may not have been the best. No one knows what localities inthe Milwaukee metropolitan area would have done if the rules governing new transit andhighway projects were the same and the playing field was level.

V. Recommendations

As Congress debates and deliberates the reauthorization of TEA-21, it should buildupon the reforms solidified in ISTEA to level the playing field between highwayand transit projects in order for officials to make sound investment decisions basedon metropolitan and local goals and objectives, rather than skewed federal policies.

In view of that, Congress should consider the following policy recommendations to ensuretransportation investments meet the modern challenges facing metropolitan areas.

First, elements of the federal policies that govern transit investments can be used to ben-efit highway programs and to help protect federal highway investments. In particular thefollowing should be pursued:

• The land use requirements of FTA New Starts guidelines should be applied tohighway projects that propose a substantial increase in capacity. These criteria lookat how transportation interacts with land use. Highways have a major impact on landuse and these effects should be considered, if for no other reason than to protect thefederal investments from being eroded by poor land use programs and polices at thelocal level. The federal government will only support transit projects where local landuse policies provide for efficient development patterns. Decision-makers should simi-larly consider how highway projects reward past inefficient land use patterns. In anycase, local and state governments should be explicitly required to deal with the landuse impacts of their projects.

• Cost-effectiveness procedures for highways should be improved. Replacement andupgrading of existing highway infrastructure will require enormous sums of money,particularly in urban areas with aging freeway systems. This money should be spentefficiently and wisely. There needs to be a substantial improvement in the process usedto assess the cost effectiveness of highway projects. Federal funds for highways shouldbe directed to projects where there is a clear demonstration that they will return valuefor money, the same as with transit projects.

• Improvements in data systems to permit better performance evaluation and peercomparisons for highway programs should be developed and implemented. This willallow highway agencies to better manage their systems and to more quickly find bestpractices in other locations that can be used to increase their program effectiveness.

By the same token, federal transit policies should be modified to make the process easierand more predictable for communities—and more level with existing policies for highways.The following should be pursued:

• Disparities in the federal match ratios need to be addressed. The disproportionbetween the 50 percent federal match for transit and the 80 percent match for high-

14 December 2003 • The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform

ways is far too dramatic to ensure proper local decisions. A community should not befaced with a choice between a transit project that requires new sources of local fundsand a highway project where the balance of funds is from state, and not local, sources.The 80 percent federal match for transit New Starts should be reestablished. Congressshould also consider increasing the amount of funding in the New Starts program torespond to escalating demand.

• Differentiate between New Starts and extensions of systems. The full New Startreview process should be used only in places where a totally new system is being con-sidered. Its use for extensions of existing systems is too cumbersome and could besimplified. Extensions should continue to be eligible for funding, but a more stream-lined process should apply.

• Amend the federal law to create a new program for “small starts”. Given the inter-est in many metropolitan areas in relatively low cost transit projects, federal law shouldbe amended to accommodate and expedite such small projects without the need forextensive and time consuming analysis procedures. Current law exempts projects withless than $25 million in federal funds from some evaluation criteria. This should beexpanded to projects seeking less than $100 million and include transit technologiessuch as bus rapid transit, streetcars and commuter rail, as well as extensions to existingsystems.

VI. Conclusion

Highway projects and new transit projects are treated very differently in federallegislation and policy. This results in a double standard with a relatively easyprocess for highway development and a difficult and complex process for transit.

When compared to highways, transit New Starts have a lower funding ratefor capital projects, intense competition between areas for funding, no secure sources ofnon-federal funding and a complex and convoluted process for project approval. Further-more, transit New Starts are required to demonstrate how they will be compatible withlocal land use, employment and low income community needs and transit agencies aresubject to accounting and financial reporting systems that enable peer comparisons withother agencies.

Congress and the administration must take the bias out of federal transportation policyso that true local decision making on transportation alternatives can be made. The rulesof the transportation game should not be pre-set inside Washington. Instead, a level play-ing field between transit and highways, based on the best mix of both programs can trulyempower localities to do what is best for their metropolitan areas. At the same time, itwould improve program accountability and funding efficiency is our nation’s transporta-tion program.

15December 2003 • The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform

“Congress and the

administration

must take the

bias out of

federal trans-

portation policy

so that true local

decision making

on transporta-

tion alternatives

can be made.”

Appendix

Federal Transit and Federal Highway Programs, Purpose, Federal Share and Authorized Funding Levels.

Federal Transit Programs

TEA-21 PERCENT OF

APPROPRIATION/ PROGRAM PURPOSE/ FEDERAL FUNDING TRANSIT

PROGRAM EXPENSES SHARE (in $ millions) PROGRAM

Urbanized Area Formula Capital, planning, preventive maintenance, 80%; 90% for 18,033.8 44.0%

(Section 5307) crime and security prevention, facilities ADA or

and rolling stock, ADA paratransit, transit Clean Air Act

enhancements for urbanized areas. purchases

New Starts Discretionary Capital projects for new fixed guideway 80% in federal law, 60% 8,182.4 20.0%

(Section 5309) systems, and extensions to existing systems, in Congressional report

including property and right-of-way language, 50% as proposed

acquisition, initial acquisition of rolling by the Bush administration

stock, alternatives analysis.

Fixed Guideway Capital projects to modernize existing fixed 80% 6,592.4 16.1%

Modernization Discretionary guideway systems

(Section 5309)

Bus and Bus Related Capital projects to replace, rehabilitate and 80% 3,546.2 8.7%

Discretionary purchase buses and related equipment and

(Section 5309) to construct bus-related facilities.

Other formula grants Includes Alaska Railroad, elderly & persons Generally 80%–100%; rural area 2,440.2 6.0%

with disabilities, and rural transit formulas. operating expenses: 50%

Transit Planning and Metropolitan, state and national planning Generally 80%–100% 1,013.0 2.5%

Research and research, rural transit assistance, and

cooperative research.

Job Access and Reverse Competitive grants to develop services to 50% 750.0 1.8%

Commute connect welfare recipients and low-income

persons to employment and support services.

Eligible expenses include capital, operating

and maintenance.

Administration 441.7 1.1%

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION TOTAL 40,999.7 100.0%

Federal Highway Programs

Surface Transportation Flexible funding that may be used by states 80% 33,332.7 19.5%

Program and localities for projects on any Federal-

aid highway bridge projects on any public

road, transit capital projects, and intracity

and intercity bus terminals and facilities.

National Highway System Improvements to rural and urban roads that 80% (100% for Alaska and 28,571.1 16.7%

are part of the NHS, including the Interstate territorial highways)

System and designated connections to major

intermodal terminals.

Interstate Maintenance Resurfacing, restoring, rehabilitating and 90% 23,809.6 13.9%

Program reconstructing most routes on the

Interstate System.

Bridge Program Replace or rehabilitate deficient highway 80% 20,430.4 11.9%

bridges and to seismic retrofit bridges located

on any public road.

16 December 2003 • The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform

TEA-21 PERCENT OF

APPROPRIATION/ PROGRAM PURPOSE/ FEDERAL FUNDING TRANSIT

PROGRAM EXPENSES SHARE (in $ millions) PROGRAM

High Priority Projects Any project eligible for Federal funds 80% 9,359.9 5.5%

defined as demonstration projects in

TEA-21.

Congestion Mitigation Funds projects and programs in air quality 80% 8,122.6 4.7%

and Air Quality nonattainment and maintenance areas for

ozone, carbon monoxide and small particulate

matter that reduce transportation related

emissions

Federal Lands Highway Funding for a coordinated program of public 100% 4,066.0 2.4%

roads and transit facilities serving Federal

and Indian lands.

Appalachian Development Construction of the Appalachian corridor 80% 2,250.0 1.3%

Highway System highways in 13 States to promote economic

development.

Magnetic Levitation Construction of an operating transportation 66% 1,010.0 0.6%

Transportation Technology system employing magnetic levitation.

Deployment Program

Woodrow Wilson Bridge Design and construction of a new bridge 80–100% 900.0 0.5%

where Interstate 95 crosses the Potomac

River.

Corridor and Border Coordinated planning, design, and 80% 700.0 0.4%

Planning construction of corridors of national

significance, economic growth, and

international or interregional trade.

Recreational Trails Develop and maintain recreational trails 80% 270.0 0.2%

for motorized and nonmotorized recreational

trail users.

Ferry Boats and Ferry Construction of ferry boats and ferry 80% 220.0 0.1%

Facilities terminal facilities.

Scenic Byways Supports and provides discretionary grants 80% 148.0 0.1%

for planning, designing and developing

scenic byway projects.

Transportation System and Planning grants, implementation grants, 100% 120.0 0.1%

Community Preservation and research to investigate and address the

relationships between transportation and

community and system preservation.

Value Pricing Support the costs of implementing value 80% 51.0 <0.1%

pricing projects.

Historic Covered Bridge Rehabilitate or repair and to preserve the 80% 50.0 <0.1%

Nation’s historic covered bridges.

Highway Use Tax Evasion State and Federal efforts to enhance motor 100% 35.0 <0.1%

fuel tax enforcement.

Minimum Guarantee Funding to States based on equity 80% 35,119.3 20.5%

considerations. Administered as STP funds.

Other Includes Puerto Rico highway program, 2,543.0 1.5%

railroad grade program, and safety programs.

FEDERAL AID HIGHWAYS TOTAL 171,108.4 100.0%

Source: Surface Transportation Policy Project, “TEA-21 User’s Guide,” (Washington, 1998); Federal Highway Administration, “Financing Federal Aid High-

ways,” FHWA-PL-99-015 (1999)

17December 2003 • The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform

Endnotes

1. Edward Beimborn is Director of the Center for Urban Trans-portation Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.Robert Puentes is senior research manager at the BrookingsInstitution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.

2. See: Robert Puentes and Linda Bailey, “Improving Metropol-itan Decision Making in Transportation: Greater Fundingand Devolution for Greater Accountability.” (Brookings,2003).

3. Tom Lewis, Divided Highways (Viking Press, New York,1997) p. 294.

4. Richard F. Weingroff, “Creating a Landmark: The Inter-modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991,”Public Roads, November/December 2001:http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/rw01.htm.

5. ibid.

6. James A. Dunn, Driving Forces (Brookings, 1998) p. 90; and David Lewis and Fred Laurence Williams, Policyand Planning as Public Choice (Ashgate Publishing, Brook-field, VT. 1999) p. 46

7. Alan Altshuler and David Luberoff, Mega-Projects: TheChanging Politics of Urban Public Investment, (Brookings,2003), p. 18.

8. U.S. Department of Transportation, “Moving America: NewDirections, New Opportunities: A Statement of NationalTransportation Policy.” (1990) p. 29 and 48.

9. Weingroff, “Creating a Landmark.”

10. U.S General Accounting Office, “Transportation Infrastruc-ture: Better Tools Needed for Making Decisions on UsingISTEA Funds Flexibly,” (1993) GAO/WED-94-26.

11. Federal Transit Administration, “Flexible Funds Transfers tothe Federal Transit Administration by State, 1992-2001,”(undated)http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/reference/flex/ffts.html.

12. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is abroad federal law that essentially sets the national environ-mental policy. It has direct relevance to transportationrequiring, for example, the examination and consideration ofpotential impacts on sensitive social and environmentalresources when considering the approval of a proposedtransportation facility.

13. Surface Transportation Policy Project, “TEA-21 User’sGuide,” (Washington, 1998.)

14. Section 1308 of TEA-21 eliminated the MIS as a separaterequirement, and required that it be integrated as part of theanalyses required to be undertaken under NEPA.

15. See: Federal Highway Administration, “Transit CapitalInvestment Grants and Loans Fact Sheet.” (1998)http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/factsheets/trcap.htm.

16. U.S. Code Title 23, Sec. 145 (a)

17. Thirty states earmark gas tax revenues for highway or road-way projects only. The remaining states allocate a portion ofrevenues to other expenditures, like transit. See RobertPuentes and Ryan Prince, “Fueling Transportation Finance:A Primer on the Gas Tax” (Brookings, 2003).

18. For a more detailed discussion, see: Transportation ResearchBoard, “Financial Capital Investment: A Primer for the Tran-sit Practitioner,” Transit Cooperative Research ProgramReport 89 (Washington: National Academy of Science,2003).

19. Eighty-five separate projects are competing for funds. U.S.General Accounting Office, “Bus Rapid Transit Offers Com-munities a Flexible Mass Transit Option,” (2003)GAO-03-729T, p. 3.

20. U.S. General Accounting Office, “Transportation Programs:Opportunities for Oversight and Improved Use of TaxpayerFunds,” (2003). GAO-03-1040T. p. 16.

21. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Public Law105–178, as amended by title IX of Public Law 105–206,chapter 3030; and Altshuler and Luberoff, Mega-Projects, p.216.

22. Making Appropriations for The Department of Transporta-tion and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year EndingSeptember 30, 2002, and for Other Purposes. H Rept.107–308. 107th Congress (Government Printing Office,2001).

23. Office of Management and Budget, “Budget of the UnitedStates Government, Fiscal Year 2004—Appendix,” Title III -General Provisions, Sec. 321 (2003)

24. SAFETEA, Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Act of 2003, Administration Proposal, May 14, 2003, Title II, Section 1301, p30 line 2,http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reauthorization/safetea_bill.pdf.

25. However, it is worth noting that the burden of financingtransportation programs is slowly shifting to local govern-ments and voter approved initiatives. For a detaileddiscussion, see: Martin Wachs, “Improving Efficiency andEquity in Transportation Finance,” (Brookings, 2003).

26. For a detailed discussion, see Transportation ResearchBoard, “Characteristics of State Funding for Public Trans-portation-2002,” Transit Cooperative Research ProgramResearch Results Digest (Washington: National Academy ofSciences, 2003).

27. Richard Werbel and Peter J. Haas, “Voting Outcomes ofLocal Tax Ballot Measures with a Substantial Rail TransitComponent,” Transportation Research Record, No. 1799,January 2002 (10-17).

28. U.S. General Accounting Office, “FTA Needs to ProvideClear Information and Additional Guidance on the NewStarts Ratings Process,” (2003). GAO-03-701. p. 12.

29. Federal Transit Administration, “Planning, Development and Funding for New Starts Program,” (2003)http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/policy/ns/ns.htm.

30. Federal Transit Administration, “Reporting Instructions forSection 5309 New Starts Criteria,” (2003) Sec. 3.4.1:http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/policy/ns/2002/34.html.

31. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropria-tions, “Departments of Transportation and Treasury andIndependent Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2004,” HouseRpt.108–243.

32. Code of Federal Regulations 23, sec. 771.115.

33. Federal Highway Administration, “Guidance for Preparingand Processing Environmental and Section 4 (F) Docu-ments,” (1987) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/nepa/ta6640.htm.

34. American Association of State Highway and TransportationOfficials, “A Manual on User Benefit-Cost Analysis of High-way and Bus-Transit Improvements,” (Washington: 1977).

35. Code of Federal Regulations 23, sec. 450.318.

36. Center for Urban Transportation Studies University of Wis-consin-Milwaukee, “An Overview: Land Use and EconomicDevelopment in Statewide Transportation Planning”, reportto Federal Highway Administration (1999).

37. Robert Burchell and others, “The Cost of Sprawl Revisited”,Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 39 (Washing-ton: National Academy of Sciences, 1998).

38. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, “2002Reporting Manual, Uniform System of Accounts,”http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/ReprtMan.nsf/Docs/USOA/$File/USOA.pdf.

39. Federal Transit Administration, “Review of the NationalTransit Database,” (2000) http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/ntd/.

40. Federal Highway Administration, “Overview of Highway Per-formance Monitoring System (HPMS) for FHWA FieldOffices,” (2003) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/hpms/hpmsprimer.htm.

18 December 2003 • The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform

41. David T. Hartgen, “Ensuring Our Trust: Performance ofState Highway Systems, 1984-2001,” University of NorthCarolina at Charlotte (2003) http://www.geoearth.uncc.edu/people/faculty/hartgen/EnsurOurTrust.html.

42. Eno Transportation Foundation, “Performance, A TQPoint/Counterpoint Exchange with David Hartgen andLance Neumann” Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 1,Winter 2002 (5–19).

43. See National Transit Database at:http://www.ntdprogram.com

44. See Code of Federal Regulations 49, sec. 535 a(1).

45. Federal Highway Administration, “Highway PerformanceMonitoring System Reassessment,” (1998) FHWA-PL-99-001. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/fin_rpt.pdf.

46. Larry Sandler, “City Ripe for Better Transit,” MilwaukeeJournal-Sentinel, May 7,2003, p. 9B.

47. Edward Glaeser and others, “Job Sprawl: Employment Loca-tion in U.S. Metropolitan Areas,” (Brookings: 2001).

48. Rebecca R. Sohmer and Robert E. Lang, “DowntownRebound,” (Brookings and Fannie Mae Foundation: 2001).

49. American Public Transportation Association, “APTA AwardWinners 1983-2001, “ (Washington: undated) http://www.apta.com/services/awards/documents/awardshist.pdf.

50. James J. Casey, “The Politics of Congestion and Implementa-tion: Milwaukee’s Freeways and the Proposed Light Rail andTransit System,” Marquette Law Review, Spring 1995.

51. “Termination of Draft Environmental Impact Statement;Milwaukee and Waukesha Counties, Wisconsin,” FederalRegister 65 (123) (June 26, 2000).

52. Federal Transit Administration, “Annual Report on NewStarts: Proposed Allocations of Funds for Fiscal Year 2004,”Appendix B. (2003).

53. Larry Sandler, “Light Rail, Heavy Debate,” Milwaukee Jour-nal-Sentinel, August 20, 1996, p. 1.

54. Representative Thomas Petri, “Setting the Record Straight,”June 12, 1998. http://www.house.gov/petri/weekly/jun12col.htm

55. Marc V. Levine, “Light Rail in Milwaukee: An Analysis of the Potential Impact on Economic Develop-ment,” University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (1992).

56. Steven Walters and Larry Sandler, “Thompson Vows 255Budget Vetoes: $43 Million to be Excised; Light Rail Fund-ing Ban to Stay,” Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, October 27,1999, p. 1.

57. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, “ARegional Freeway System Reconstruction Plan for South-eastern Wisconsin.” (Waukesha: 2003).

19December 2003 • The Brookings Institution Series on Transportation Reform

AcknowledgmentsThe Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy would like tothank the Ford, Joyce, MacArthur, and McKnight foundations for their support of itswork on transportation policy reform. Brookings would also like to thank the FannieMae Foundation for its founding support of the urban center and its work.

The following individuals provided invaluable review and general assistance in thedevelopment of this brief:

John Neff and Rich Weaver, American Public Transportation Association; BrigidHynes-Cherin, Parsons Transportation Group; Amy M. Scarton, Office of Congress-man Earl Blumenauer; Kate Mattice and Matthew Welbes, Federal TransitAdministration; Jeff Boothe, Holland & Knight, LLP; Beth Osborne, Smart GrowthAmerica; and Scott Bernstein, Center for Neighborhood Technology. Heidi Karp pro-vided excellent research assistance.

Finally we would also like to thank our other associates and colleagues who providedadditional input and insight which helped in drafting this brief.

For More Information:

Edward BeimbornUniversity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Center for Urban Transportation Studies

beimborn@uwm.edu

Robert PuentesBrookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy

rpuentes@brookings.edu

The Brookings Institution

1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW • Washington D.C. 20036-2188Tel: 202-797-6000 • Fax: 202-797-6004

www.brookings.edu

Direct: 202-797-6139 • Fax/direct: 202-797-2965

www.brookings.edu/urban

Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy

About the Brookings Institution Series on Transportation ReformIn order to inform the debate over reauthorization of the federal surface transporta-tion laws—the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century—the BrookingsInstitution has initiated a series of analyses designed to assess federal transportationreform. The essays will provide policymakers, the press, and the interested publicwith a comprehensive guide to the numerous issues that must be addressed as Con-gress considers the future of the nation’s transportation policies.

In the Series: • TEA-21 Reauthorization: Getting Transportation Right for Metropolitan America• Fueling Transportation Finance: A Primer on the Gas Tax• Slanted Pavement: How Ohio’s Transportation Spending Shortchanges Cities

and Suburbs• Improving Efficiency and Equity in Transportation Finance• The Long Journey to Work: A Federal Transportation Policy for Working Families• The Mobility Needs of Older Americans: Implications for Transportation

Reauthorization• Improving Metropolitan Decision Making in Transportation: Greater Funding and

Devolution for Greater Accountability• Highways and Transit: Leveling the Playing Field in Federal Transportation Policy

Forthcoming: • The Need for Regional Anti-Congestion Policies• Protecting America’s Highways and Transit Systems Against Terrorism